2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[70sFan]

in my defense i have always been low on klay

excellent player, but i dont think he ever was a capital S star imo

he has always been the Tony Parker of the Warriors big 3 for me. A very good player but not the generational player that Curry/Dray are and Tim/Manu were.

Tony Parker is one of the best point guards of his generation. He definitely belongs in the same class as Manu. He was a finals MVP.

He was a finals MVP in a series in which he was at best 3rd best player.

[Gooner]

he has always been the Tony Parker of the Warriors big 3 for me. A very good player but not the generational player that Curry/Dray are and Tim/Manu were.

Tony Parker is one of the best point guards of his generation. He definitely belongs in the same class as Manu. He was a finals MVP.

He was a finals MVP in a series in which he was at best 3rd best player.

How? What makes you think he was the third best player?

[70sFan]

Tony Parker is one of the best point guards of his generation. He definitely belongs in the same class as Manu. He was a finals MVP.

He was a finals MVP in a series in which he was at best 3rd best player.

How? What makes you think he was the third best player?

The fact that he has the weakest +/-, AuPM and only marginally better BPM than Manu (weaker than Duncan). It means that he looks the weakest from impact perspective and doesn't look better from boxscore perspective. Also, the fact that Spurs won this series with their defense and Parker was the weakest defender among starters.

You can make a case that he was better than Manu because of Manu horrible performance in game 3, but Ginobili was better in other games. Duncan had only one bad game in that series (also game 3), but he was clearly the best player in the rest of the series. Duncan looks better from boxscore perspective and they don't capture defensive impact where Timmy crushes Parker.

Ben Taylor also recently shared a podcast on his Patreon account where he compares boxscore and impact metrics to evaluate FMVPs from last 20 years and he said that Parker looks the weakest from both perspective from his point of view, so it's not like I'm alone here.

Averages can be misleading in such a small sample of size. Not always the leading scorer is the best player on the team. Duncan was clearly the best player on Spurs team and Manu was more impactful in his best games, though he had one stinker in game 3. Anyway, Parker wasn't clear best player in that series and he was 3rd best Spurs player throughout the whole season and postseason, so it shouldn't be surprising for us.

[Gooner]

He was a finals MVP in a series in which he was at best 3rd best player.

How? What makes you think he was the third best player?

The fact that he has the weakest +/-, AuPM and only marginally better BPM than Manu (weaker than Duncan). It means that he looks the weakest from impact perspective and doesn't look better from boxscore perspective. Also, the fact that Spurs won this series with their defense and Parker was the weakest defender among starters.

You can make a case that he was better than Manu because of Manu horrible performance in game 3, but Ginobili was better in other games. Duncan had only one bad game in that series (also game 3), but he was clearly the best player in the rest of the series. Duncan looks better from boxscore perspective and they don't capture defensive impact where Timmy crushes Parker.

Ben Taylor also recently shared a podcast on his Patreon account where he compares boxscore and impact metrics to evaluate FMVPs from last 20 years and he said that Parker looks the weakest from both perspective from his point of view, so it's not like I'm alone here.

Averages can be misleading in such a small sample of size. Not always the leading scorer is the best player on the team. Duncan was clearly the best player on Spurs team and Manu was more impactful in his best games, though he had one stinker in game 3. Anyway, Parker wasn't clear best player in that series and he was 3rd best Spurs player throughout the whole season and postseason, so it shouldn't be surprising for us.

Parker led his team in scoring in 3 out of 4 games and he had by far the highest ppg on by far the best efficiency. Ginobili shot 37% in that series. Yes it's a small sample size, but MVP is given based on those 4 games, and Parker was the best. He was generally a very efficient player for a point guard.

[70sFan]

How? What makes you think he was the third best player?

The fact that he has the weakest +/-, AuPM and only marginally better BPM than Manu (weaker than Duncan). It means that he looks the weakest from impact perspective and doesn't look better from boxscore perspective. Also, the fact that Spurs won this series with their defense and Parker was the weakest defender among starters.

You can make a case that he was better than Manu because of Manu horrible performance in game 3, but Ginobili was better in other games. Duncan had only one bad game in that series (also game 3), but he was clearly the best player in the rest of the series. Duncan looks better from boxscore perspective and they don't capture defensive impact where Timmy crushes Parker.

Ben Taylor also recently shared a podcast on his Patreon account where he compares boxscore and impact metrics to evaluate FMVPs from last 20 years and he said that Parker looks the weakest from both perspective from his point of view, so it's not like I'm alone here.

Averages can be misleading in such a small sample of size. Not always the leading scorer is the best player on the team. Duncan was clearly the best player on Spurs team and Manu was more impactful in his best games, though he had one stinker in game 3. Anyway, Parker wasn't clear best player in that series and he was 3rd best Spurs player throughout the whole season and postseason, so it shouldn't be surprising for us.

Parker led his team in scoring in 3 out of 4 games and he had by far the highest ppg on by far the best efficiency. Ginobili shot 37% in that series. Yes it's a small sample size, but MVP is given based on those 4 games, and Parker was the best. He was generally a very efficient player for a point guard.

As I said, if you look strictly on ppg, then Parker is your FMVP. He wasn't the most impactful player in the series and he wasn't the most productive either.

[Gooner]

The fact that he has the weakest +/-, AuPM and only marginally better BPM than Manu (weaker than Duncan). It means that he looks the weakest from impact perspective and doesn't look better from boxscore perspective. Also, the fact that Spurs won this series with their defense and Parker was the weakest defender among starters.

You can make a case that he was better than Manu because of Manu horrible performance in game 3, but Ginobili was better in other games. Duncan had only one bad game in that series (also game 3), but he was clearly the best player in the rest of the series. Duncan looks better from boxscore perspective and they don't capture defensive impact where Timmy crushes Parker.

Ben Taylor also recently shared a podcast on his Patreon account where he compares boxscore and impact metrics to evaluate FMVPs from last 20 years and he said that Parker looks the weakest from both perspective from his point of view, so it's not like I'm alone here.

Averages can be misleading in such a small sample of size. Not always the leading scorer is the best player on the team. Duncan was clearly the best player on Spurs team and Manu was more impactful in his best games, though he had one stinker in game 3. Anyway, Parker wasn't clear best player in that series and he was 3rd best Spurs player throughout the whole season and postseason, so it shouldn't be surprising for us.

Parker led his team in scoring in 3 out of 4 games and he had by far the highest ppg on by far the best efficiency. Ginobili shot 37% in that series. Yes it's a small sample size, but MVP is given based on those 4 games, and Parker was the best. He was generally a very efficient player for a point guard.

As I said, if you look strictly on ppg, then Parker is your FMVP. He wasn't the most impactful player in the series and he wasn't the most productive either.

What am I supposed to look at? There is a general criteria for MVP, and if a guy leads his team in scoring and efficiency by far, there is a good chance he will get the award.

[70sFan]

Parker led his team in scoring in 3 out of 4 games and he had by far the highest ppg on by far the best efficiency. Ginobili shot 37% in that series. Yes it's a small sample size, but MVP is given based on those 4 games, and Parker was the best. He was generally a very efficient player for a point guard.

As I said, if you look strictly on ppg, then Parker is your FMVP. He wasn't the most impactful player in the series and he wasn't the most productive either.

What am I supposed to look at? There is a general criteria for MVP, and if a guy leads his team in scoring and efficiency by far, there is a good chance he will get the award.

I tried to show you different ways, but you're not willing to listen.

Spurs had 104.4 ORtg in that series. That's almost 5 points below their RS average. Their offense wasn't that good, it was their defense that shut down Cavs offense and made the difference. Do you think that Parker contributed as much to their defense as Duncan?

I bet if we had RealGM in the 1960s, you'd argue that Tommy Heinsohn was a better basketball player than Bill Russell as well.

[Gooner]

As I said, if you look strictly on ppg, then Parker is your FMVP. He wasn't the most impactful player in the series and he wasn't the most productive either.

What am I supposed to look at? There is a general criteria for MVP, and if a guy leads his team in scoring and efficiency by far, there is a good chance he will get the award.

I tried to show you different ways, but you're not willing to listen.

Spurs had 104.4 ORtg in that series. That's almost 5 points below their RS average. Their offense wasn't that good, it was their defense that shut down Cavs offense and made the difference. Do you think that Parker contributed as much to their defense as Duncan?

I bet if we had RealGM in the 1960s, you'd argue that Tommy Heinsohn was a better basketball player than Bill Russell as well.

First of all, this is not even an argument whether Parker was the best player on the team or not. Everybody knows that Duncan was the main guy there. My argument is that Parker belongs in the same class as Ginobili at the very least. Second of all, having these types of offensive numbers in a low scoring series makes Parker's performance even better. He earned that finals MVP, but that's not the only evidence to show that Parker was a great player.

[70sFan]

What am I supposed to look at? There is a general criteria for MVP, and if a guy leads his team in scoring and efficiency by far, there is a good chance he will get the award.

I tried to show you different ways, but you're not willing to listen.

Spurs had 104.4 ORtg in that series. That's almost 5 points below their RS average. Their offense wasn't that good, it was their defense that shut down Cavs offense and made the difference. Do you think that Parker contributed as much to their defense as Duncan?

I bet if we had RealGM in the 1960s, you'd argue that Tommy Heinsohn was a better basketball player than Bill Russell as well.

First of all, this is not even an argument whether Parker was the best player on the team or not. Everybody knows that Duncan was the main guy there. My argument is that Parker belongs in the same class as Ginobili at the very least. Second of all, having these types of offensive numbers in a low scoring series makes Parker's performance even better. He earned that finals MVP, but that's not the only evidence to show that Parker was a great player.

Again, small sample of size can be destroyed by one bad game. If we exclude game 3 (the worst performance from both Parker and Manu), their numbers look much more comparable:

Parker: 27.0/5.0/3.3 on 63.4 TS% in 37 mpg
Manu: 22.7/6.3/1.7 on 63.6 TS% in 30 mpg

Parker's case is more minutes played as always, Manu was more impactful in minutes he played.

Yes, Parker was a great player. Not as good as Manu, but still great. I'd take him over Klay personally.

[Gooner]

I tried to show you different ways, but you're not willing to listen.

Spurs had 104.4 ORtg in that series. That's almost 5 points below their RS average. Their offense wasn't that good, it was their defense that shut down Cavs offense and made the difference. Do you think that Parker contributed as much to their defense as Duncan?

I bet if we had RealGM in the 1960s, you'd argue that Tommy Heinsohn was a better basketball player than Bill Russell as well.

First of all, this is not even an argument whether Parker was the best player on the team or not. Everybody knows that Duncan was the main guy there. My argument is that Parker belongs in the same class as Ginobili at the very least. Second of all, having these types of offensive numbers in a low scoring series makes Parker's performance even better. He earned that finals MVP, but that's not the only evidence to show that Parker was a great player.

Again, small sample of size can be destroyed by one bad game. If we exclude game 3 (the worst performance from both Parker and Manu), their numbers look much more comparable:

Parker: 27.0/5.0/3.3 on 63.4 TS% in 37 mpg
Manu: 22.7/6.3/1.7 on 63.6 TS% in 30 mpg

Parker's case is more minutes played as always, Manu was more impactful in minutes he played.

Yes, Parker was a great player. Not as good as Manu, but still great. I'd take him over Klay personally.

Parker and Manu are equal to me, both instrumental players of a dynasty, part of a big 3 with Tim Duncan. Same with Klay in Golden State. To see people saying that champions like Parker or Klay aren't great players, that's what I don't like.

[70sFan]

First of all, this is not even an argument whether Parker was the best player on the team or not. Everybody knows that Duncan was the main guy there. My argument is that Parker belongs in the same class as Ginobili at the very least. Second of all, having these types of offensive numbers in a low scoring series makes Parker's performance even better. He earned that finals MVP, but that's not the only evidence to show that Parker was a great player.

Again, small sample of size can be destroyed by one bad game. If we exclude game 3 (the worst performance from both Parker and Manu), their numbers look much more comparable:

Parker: 27.0/5.0/3.3 on 63.4 TS% in 37 mpg
Manu: 22.7/6.3/1.7 on 63.6 TS% in 30 mpg

Parker's case is more minutes played as always, Manu was more impactful in minutes he played.

Yes, Parker was a great player. Not as good as Manu, but still great. I'd take him over Klay personally.

Parker and Manu are equal to me, both instrumental players of a dynasty, part of a big 3 with Tim Duncan. Same with Klay in Golden State. To see people saying that champions like Parker or Klay aren't great players, that's what I don't like.

They were intrumental, but it doesn't mean they were superstars or something. By the way, Klay used to be much better player than he is now. Just like Parker wasn't his prime self in 2003 or 2016.

[Gooner]

Again, small sample of size can be destroyed by one bad game. If we exclude game 3 (the worst performance from both Parker and Manu), their numbers look much more comparable:

Parker: 27.0/5.0/3.3 on 63.4 TS% in 37 mpg
Manu: 22.7/6.3/1.7 on 63.6 TS% in 30 mpg

Parker's case is more minutes played as always, Manu was more impactful in minutes he played.

Yes, Parker was a great player. Not as good as Manu, but still great. I'd take him over Klay personally.

Parker and Manu are equal to me, both instrumental players of a dynasty, part of a big 3 with Tim Duncan. Same with Klay in Golden State. To see people saying that champions like Parker or Klay aren't great players, that's what I don't like.

They were intrumental, but it doesn't mean they were superstars or something. By the way, Klay used to be much better player than he is now. Just like Parker wasn't his prime self in 2003 or 2016.

I don't know what's the definition of a superstar, but I know that winning matters the most. If there is an objective way to call someone a superstar, I think someone who is a second or sometimes first scorer on a dynasty should qualify for that.

[70sFan]

Parker and Manu are equal to me, both instrumental players of a dynasty, part of a big 3 with Tim Duncan. Same with Klay in Golden State. To see people saying that champions like Parker or Klay aren't great players, that's what I don't like.

They were intrumental, but it doesn't mean they were superstars or something. By the way, Klay used to be much better player than he is now. Just like Parker wasn't his prime self in 2003 or 2016.

I don't know what's the definition of a superstar, but I know that winning matters the most. If there is an objective way to call someone a superstar, I think someone who is a second or sometimes first scorer on a dynasty should qualify for that.

Klay was never the first scorer on a dynasty and he was more often a third scorer than second. We have the data showing how Klay fares without Curry and his production goes down, as well as Warriors offense.

[Gooner]

They were intrumental, but it doesn't mean they were superstars or something. By the way, Klay used to be much better player than he is now. Just like Parker wasn't his prime self in 2003 or 2016.

I don't know what's the definition of a superstar, but I know that winning matters the most. If there is an objective way to call someone a superstar, I think someone who is a second or sometimes first scorer on a dynasty should qualify for that.

Klay was never the first scorer on a dynasty and he was more often a third scorer than second. We have the data showing how Klay fares without Curry and his production goes down, as well as Warriors offense.

Klay was and still is the second scorer, and I don't consider KD as part of their core, and all you guys here never give KD any credit for that anyway. Klay also won a series against Portland in 2016 with Curry being out or injured. Parker was the second and sometimes even first option in their dynasty. Both Klay adn Prker are very underrated here.

[Doctor MJ]

So put me down in basically any column that says "Oh no, Ginobili was even better than you think." I'm not looking to knock Parker - who absolutely is a HOFer and a Top 100 player - but Ginobili is one of the most unique players in modern basketball history, and someone who regularly got drastically underrated by traditional accolades for understandable reasons.

And yeah, in this sense, Draymond & Manu have a lot in common.

In terms of Parker vs Klay, the analogy makes sense based on a team ranking, but I'd want to emphasize that Parker was a rock the Spurs depended upon to have solid production in any game, while Klay is more like a feather flittering here and there, oftentimes leaving us feeling like the team would be fine without his offense (his defense was always valuable prior to this year, and even in this year's playoffs, he's still made a lot of great plays).

I'm hearing some talk about Klay not being one of the 5 best players on the Warriors right now, and I get it...but it's the beauty of that established threat: Defenses can't ignore Klay, even when his shot isn't falling, which means that he basically always has offensive value.

Of course as I say this, were I the Celtics, and I got behind in this series with Klay not hitting shots, I'd certainly pull out "ignore Klay" as a desperation wild card...but to be honest, I think part of the reason Klay is known as "Game 6 Klay" is because teams do tend to relax on him a bit if he has a number of weak shooting games in a row in a series, and then once you give Klay the opening he gets into his groove.

[Doctor MJ]

One big thing I've noticed is that the Warriors have simply stopped running their motion sets when they go on their 3rd quarter runs. It's been almost exclusively Curry on-ball and high screen-roll. It's the only thing that's working against this Celtics half-court defense.

It's the only thing that's worked, but I'm not so sure the Warriors are being forced out of their motion by Boston's defense. By my eyes (i.e., I don't have the numbers to back this up and can never remember from among the umpteen sites where people get which data...) they've just gradually become a less kinetic halfcourt team over time, and Curry in particular has decreased his off-ball mileage. I could be wrong, but my guess here is that if Curry and the Warriors could move off-ball as crisply and as relentlessly as they used to, it will still be more effective than Curry on-ball running P&R, and they'd wouldn't have to go away from it. And I think all of this explains at least some of the drop in efficiency that Curry has experienced this year (and which probably isn't coming back at this stage of his career, unless he improbably becomes even better at shooting contested shots).

Warriors managed 17 pick and rolls on average in the regular season...which would rank next to dead last in the whole league. They did 33 in game 2. So I don't think it's so much Curry being unable to fly all over the floor like he used to but a conscious decision to pull their ace card, which is Curry in pick and roll. The Warriors purposely limit their most lethal play to promote their "strength in numbers" approach in the regular season but it's good that they've learned to be less dogmatic when everything's on the line.

I like how you put it with "ace card".

What I definitely see from Steve Kerr is that he understands the value of training his players so that he has adjustment options in a playoff series. He's not the only coach who does this in the modern game, but he's noteworthy with it because he's willing to take criticism for seeming to refuse to use certain approaches more (Death Lineup, etc), and doesn't seem overly perturbed when something goes wrong early in the series.

I'll say that the guy who handed Kerr his big loss - Ty Lue - is also a master at adjustments. (As is Nick Nurse of Toronto who I don't want to give the short shrift, but I do think Nurse's big accomplishment was beating the Bucks rather than the injured Warriors in the 2019 playoffs.)

[eminence]

Man, I am preparing to be massively disappointed in how the Jazz handle this offseason

[Texas Chuck]

Man, I am preparing to be massively disappointed in how the Jazz handle this offseason

I don't know if they choose a direction you like, but I expect them to choose a clear direction at least. They will either figure out a way to upgrade the perimeter defense and run back a Gobert/Mitchell based team or they will move Gobert/probably another vet or two and pivot around Mitchell. Or I suppose they could blow it all the way up, but my guess is its either one more attempt with this group or its goodbye Rudy and one or more of Bojan/Conley/Clarkson and a step back with the intent to step back forward in a couple years.

But I get it. I expect Dallas to have roughly the same team, with some marginal center added. No more talent but going from a low payroll team to one of the most expensive teams with Luka and Brunson combining to make like 6x what they made this past year lol. Hopefully Niko surprises me and pulls something off, but not holding my breath.

[eminence]

Man, I am preparing to be massively disappointed in how the Jazz handle this offseason

I don't know if they choose a direction you like, but I expect them to choose a clear direction at least. They will either figure out a way to upgrade the perimeter defense and run back a Gobert/Mitchell based team or they will move Gobert/probably another vet or two and pivot around Mitchell. Or I suppose they could blow it all the way up, but my guess is its either one more attempt with this group or its goodbye Rudy and one or more of Bojan/Conley/Clarkson and a step back with the intent to step back forward in a couple years.

But I get it. I expect Dallas to have roughly the same team, with some marginal center added. No more talent but going from a low payroll team to one of the most expensive teams with Luka and Brunson combining to make like 6x what they made this past year lol. Hopefully Niko surprises me and pulls something off, but not holding my breath.

I'm okay with the mostly runback (try to move a vet or two for a new fit cause the mentality of the club is broke, so it needs something), I'm okay I guess with the full blow up, though not happy.

I fully expect what will happen to be moving Gobert like you outline, which I absolutely hate.

A Mavs hypothetical parallel - after '07 Cuban decides to ship out Dirk and build around Josh Howard.

[parsnips33]

Was randomly watching game 2 of the 2015 WCF Rockets vs Warriors. Insane how much both Steph and Harden improved from then, even when they were already top 2 in MVP voting.

Steph specifically has become a much better defender and passer and his decisiveness in moving off ball is on a whole new level now